Sasidharan K.S. and Others v. State of Kerala and Complainants

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4333 of 2008() ------------------------CC.677/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, HOSDRUG .................... ## PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. SASIDHARAN.K.S/O.V.SANKARAN, AGED 41 YEARS, KUTHIRUMMAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMKARA, AJANUR P.O., HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 2. JAYAPRASAD, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT RAVANESWARAM, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 3. RATHEESH, S/O.NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT REVANESWARAM, RAVANESWARAM POST, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 4. BABU, S/O.KRISHNAN ACHARI, RESIDING AT RAVANESWARAM, RAVANEWARAM POST, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 5. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.CHOYI RESIDING AT ALAKODE, PALLIKKARA, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 6. KRISHNAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT RAVANESWARAM, RAVANESWARAM POST, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 7. SASIKUMAR, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT THANNOTT, RAVANESWARAM, RAVANESWARAM POST, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU ## RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS & STATE. ------------------------------------ 1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,NEELESWAR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. N.RAMESHAN, S/O.KUNHIKANNAN, AGED 37 YEARS, RERSIDING AT AMBETHADI, KARINDALAM, ' KASARGOD DISTRICT. 3. SETHU BANGALAM, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 37 YEARS,RESIDING AT BANAGALAM, MADIKAI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. 4. V.VASU, S/O.AMBOOTY, RESIDING AT OMACHERI, KARINDALAM, KARINDALAM VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. 5. VIDHYARAJ,S/O.KARUNAKARAN, RESIDING AT KAUTHAGATE, PALLIKKARA, NEELESWAR VILLAGE, NEELESWAR P.O. KASARGOD DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER SRI.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN FOR R2 TO R5 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **R.BASANT, J.** **----------------------** Crl.M.C.No.4333 of 2008 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of November 2008 ## **O R D E R** Petitioners are accused 1 to 7 and they face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable inter alia under Sections 143,147,148 and 452 read with 149 I.P.C. The other offences alleged are compoundable. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report. Altogether there are four injured persons in this case. They are arrayed as respondents 2 to 5. Trial has not commenced. 2. At this juncture, the petitioner along with respondents 2 to 5 have come before this court to apprise this court of the fact that the parties have settled their disputes and respondents 2 to 5 have compounded all offences allegedly committed by the petitioners against them. The incident is one which is purely private and personal between the parties. Most of the substantive offences are compoundable. Inasmuch as the disputes are personal and private between the parties and there is no reasonable chance of success if the prosecution is continued, it is prayed that the composition may be accepted and the proceedings may be quashed. Crl.M.C.No.4333/08 2 3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that in the circumstances of this case, the State does not want to oppose the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the crux of the allegations is that on account of certain objectionable publications made against the sister of the accused persons, they have gone to the press of the de facto complainant and taken the persons through task for publishing such an information. The incident occurred in the course of that occurrence. 4. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in **Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287]** , **Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008(3) KLT 769(SC)]** and **Manoj Sharma v. State [2008(4)KLT 417 SC]** can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the prosecution against the petitioners herein. Crl.M.C.No.4333/08 3 5. In the result, a) This Crl.M.C is allowed. b) C.C.No.677/2008 against the petitioners pending before the learned J.F.C.M-II, Hosdurg in which respondents 2 to 5 are the victims is hereby quashed. c) Needless to say, the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C, if any, pending against the petitioners and their sureties shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate, in accordance with law. **(R.BASANT, JUDGE)** jsr Crl.M.C.No.4333/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.4333/08 5 ## **R.BASANT, J.** CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008